What: All Issues :
War & Peace :
Well-Being of America's Military Personnel :
A vote on passage of a Democratic motion to waive Senate budget rules prohibiting consideration of a Democratic amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Defense Department authorization legislation (S. 2400) to lower the retirement age for National Guard and Reserve troops from 60 to 55.

Who:
All Members

To find out how your Members of Congress voted on this bill, use the form on the right.

A vote on passage of a Democratic motion to waive Senate budget rules prohibiting consideration of a Democratic amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Defense Department authorization legislation (S. 2400) to lower the retirement age for National Guard and Reserve troops from 60 to 55.

Progressives backed Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) in offering this amendment to the fiscal year 2005 defense department authorization legislation (S. 2400) to lower the retirement age for National Guard and Reserve troops from 60 to 55. "During this critical time when so many members of the Guard and Reserve are serving bravely in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, I think this is the least we can do," Corzine said, noting that his amendment was an effort to move the retirement age to match up with the civilian retirement age in the country. Corzine noted that the current Guard retirement age was established 50 years ago at a time when it neared civil service retirement age. "In the intermediate time, we have lowered civil service retirement age to 55, but we left Guard and Reserves at 60. It does not make sense that we are treating civilian federal employees differently than we are treating reservists, particularly, I will point out, in a changed security situation," Corzine said. However, conservatives argued that Corzine's amendment violates Senate rules, which prohibit senators from offering measures to non-spending bills that would increase government spending. Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) said Corzine's amendment, "would allow eligible reservists to be able to collect retirement pay at age 55 instead of age 60. That would be an extremely costly change to implement," Warner said, carrying a price tag in 2005 by $1.7 billion. It would cost $8.2 billion in mandatory spending over the coming 5 years and $16 billion over the coming decade. Those are very major costs." Corzine offered a motion to waive (do away with) Warner's procedural objection, a motion that requires the support three-fifths majority (60) of the total Senate. However, Corzine's motion was rejected 49-49, and the amendment fell